In a message dated 6/10/00 5:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< My reading of the discussion of the waterfall -- and Marx's theory of rent
in general -- is that the waterfall "creates" surplus-value _for the owner
of the waterfall_ but not for society as a whole. One of Marx's major
points is that the different kinds of property income (profits, interest,
rent) do not come from physical commodities (capital goods, money, land)
but from exploited labor. Those who receive rent get it because they
control resources giving them special advantages that allow them to capture
part of society's surplus-value, but the latter springs from the
surplus-labor done by workers in production.
>>
Apart from the distinction between SV "for the owner of the waterfall" and
"for society asa a whole," a distinction that would have to be explained, the
rest of this is question-begging. Sure, Marx usually proceeds on the
assumption that all value is produced by workers, but need he maintain it?
Moreover, in the face of differential rent, can he maintain it? I don't
undertand Jim's distinction that is supposed to get Marx out of the problem.
Value is value, SV is SV, it's not "for one" vs "for all"; once created, it
is there to be distributed in circularion. But ownership of the waterfall is
not a circularion question; it is a matter of differential control over the
means of production. It's just in this case, the value-producing aspect of
the means of production is not that it is operated by labor that is
explaoited, but that no one else has it. It is exploitation of capiatls, if
aything--somethging that Roemer was shown is mathemetically possible. --jks
